Leaders Spar Over Iran’s Aims and U.S. Power

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad addressed the UN yesterday. In truth, Bush was always going to get stuffed at this event as he lost the trust of this international forum years ago with his claims that Iraq had WMD.

Yesterday, Ahmadinejad stressed this point:

"The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the security council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account?" he said.

Bingo!

This was the argument that many of us made three years ago when Bush spoke of not needing "a permission slip" from the UN in order to invade Iraq. Why should other nations feel incumbent to obey UN resolutions when the US and UK disobey the UN with apparent impunity?

This is the problem Bush faces. Having flouted international law himself he looks hypocritical when he demands that others adhere to an international system of governance that he himself has rejected.

Ahmadinejad had all the best cards to play... and play them he did:

Mr Ahmadinejad made no reference to Iran's nuclear activities, instead reminding delegates that America had itself used the bomb.

He accused the US of using terrorism as a "pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq". He also criticised Washington's support for Israel, and accused the UN security council of sitting "idly by for many days" while atrocities were committed in Lebanon this summer.

Nor did it end there:

He criticized America for not calling for a cease-fire during the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon this summer. “Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the rights of the big powers,” the Iranian president said. “When the oppressed” are targeted, he said, “the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a cease-fire.”

Bush had little to counter this with, other than the empty cliches we have heard a thousand times:

“From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom,” Mr. Bush said. “And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice, as well: will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East, or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists?

I don't know about you, but the images of Beirut and Baghdad that form in my mind are unlikely to make me yearn for the lifestyles currently enjoyed in either of those cities. If that's what freedom and democracy promises I think I'd give it a miss.

The thing that kept coming back to me as I watched yesterday's non-encounter between the two men was the fact that Bush should have resigned when no WMD were found in Iraq. It hung over the chamber like a cloud of Agent Orange. Bush and Blair ignored international law, claiming that Iraq had WMD, and only the discovery of those weapons would have somehow, retrospectively, justified their defiance.

The fact that they were both flat wrong means they have zero credence when it comes to demanding that other states obey the very same laws that they themselves flouted.

Were a new American President standing in front of the UN, the slate would have been wiped clean. Bush would have been seen to have paid the price for his mistake, and the legitimacy of this international forum would have been enhanced.

As it is, Bush's presence only smacks of hypocrisy, and the credence of the US remains fatally damaged until this lawbreaker is removed from office.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Ahmadinejad, UN,